Your hand of mercy

An old Emu song that has been resonating with me these few days. (Hard to find the music for it though!)

Although we had no claim
you held Your hand of mercy to us.
What we receive for all our work
on earth is pain and death.
Your love we do not deserve.
We could not save ourselves.
And yet You gave a gift of life
through Jesus hanging,
bleeding on a cross.

In selfishness and sin we have been
blinded from Your truth.
We hate, we hurt, we hide from You
pretending we’re in control.
But please now open our eyes.
Replace this heart of stone.
Make us Your new creation and let
nothing keep us from
the love of God.

We praise you God our Father
for the gift of Your dear Son.
for Jesus Christ who shared our earth
and died that we might live.
And now You’ve opened our eyes,
Replaced this heart of stone,
Made us Your new creation
and now nothing keeps us from the love of God.


Although we had no claim
You held Your
hand of mercy to us.

Off the cuff on pastoral ministry

I read a few pages of Brothers, We are Not Professionals this morning. And I am struck again by how anyone could aspire, attain to pastoral ministry. Piper says of those of us in this vocation - "we do not try to secure a professional lifestyle, but we are ready to hunger and thirst and be ill-clad and homeless". He goes on to list daunting statement after daunting statement - we are to pant after God in prayer. We are to weep over our sin. We are to be God-besotted lovers of Christ. We are afflicted but not crushed, always carrying in our body the death of Jesus. And on it goes. Is there any "professionalism" in any of this? Who is worthy of such a calling?

Elsewhere, Carl Trueman has an interesting trilogy of posts calling the pastor to be a jack-of-all-trades in an age of increasing specialisation and fragmentation. I remember once reading somewhere else where this particular person opined that a pastor should be well-versed not just in biblical studies and theology, but abreast of the latest developments in politics, aware of cultural anthropological and sociological theory, be well-read in the field of bioethics, ready to involve himself in all sorts of socio-political activism etc. etc. Just reading it was exhausting! And obviously unrealistic. Nor does it quite seem to reflect the biblical emphases on the qualifications of pastoral ministry. Nonetheless, it is true that a pastor, as Trueman points out, should at least be seeking to read his context and culture as best as he can, to be aware of current affairs and of history, to be cognisant of a diversity of trends; in other words, to be at least competent over wide subject areas - a GP if not a specialist doctor. And you still have to think. Who is worthy of such a calling?

Then I read Kevin DeYoung's advice to young pastors - part 1 & part 2. It's the sort of common sense we need, Number 4, for instance. That the priorities of the pastor should be proclamation, prayer and people still ring true even if it's not new. OK, so now that sounds simple, right? Then I think of how exhausting it is to plod on, wrestling with exegetical difficulties, stressing over the packaging of that sermon or Bible study, despairing over some theological or ethical Gordion knot. I think of my own prayerlessness. I think over how I could have encouraged that person better, handled that person better, counselled that person better. And the refrain remains: who is worthy of such a calling?

And then I turn to Ed Stetzer's interview with church planter Darrin Patrick. DP laments the fact that "most pastors don't know how to build systems, structures, and processes that are not contingent upon them. Most pastors can care for people, but don't build systems of care. Most pastors can develop leaders individually, but lack the skill to implement a process of leadership development." And I think, hey, wait a minute, that's exactly the sort of thing I'll be weak at! Who is worthy of such a calling?

Then I suddenly hear the music playing softly in the background on my computer.

Spirit of grace, You’ve shed Your light
Upon our darkened eyes, unveiling Jesus Christ
Come change our hearts, conform our ways
To honor Jesus’ Name, His glory our refrain
Let His love compel our own
As we worship at His throne

Only Jesus!...

Who can be in pastoral ministry on his own? Indeed, who can be a Christian on his own? None of us. Only when we derive our identity not from ministry success or some similar thing, but from the fact that we are loved by God and are called his child because of the death of His Son, only then can we go on. Who is worthy of such a calling? Only Jesus. And therefore, only because of Jesus can we be counted similarly worthy.

Not yet dead

Nope, this blog isn't dead, yet.

I did toy with the idea of completely calling it a day, but when I've been poring through the archives, I was actually surprised. Mostly, pleasantly surprised. There are a lot of thoughts (and memories) crammed in there!

It was a really interesting exercise actually. Some posts I remembered distinctly. Some I don't remember writing at all. Quite a lot I still agree with, but would now refine or nuance it more. (But you can't say everything!) Maybe one or two which I would now throw away. Some of my convictions have strengthened. Some of my convictions, relaxed a little. What is especially interesting is what I have chosen to say, and not say, on this blog. What you get, I think, is a true shape of my thoughts, but not the complete shape. For eg., there's one period where you could reasonably infer I was becoming quite "emerging", which isn't the whole truth. I was fascinated by that particular stream, and tried to be generous with it, as I try to be with all things. But I don't think I was as "emerging" as it might look.

The main point is that writing still helps me to focus my thoughts and to do some thinking aloud. It's a good discipline to try to maintain. I know I just won't be able to keep up a good pace of blogging with my schedule nowadays, but I want to keep on trying to write and reflect in this space. I often still do have lots and lots of thoughts floating around in my head which needs some space to breathe, and this is still the ideal place for it.

:-)

Back in Malaysia

I figure it's probably the right time to mention this.

After 8 years spent in the UK, I am now back in Malaysia for the long haul. That's always been the plan. It, however, has happened a little earlier than I expected. I had been looking to return in the 2nd half of 2010, after I had finished off my 2-year apprenticeship. God's timeline was different. Regular readers of this blog will know that I had visa problems which meant that I returned late last year. At that point, I was still looking to go back, but in the end, it was not to be.

In a recent prayer letter, this is what I wrote:

About a month ago, I preached on Matthew 26:1-16 at 3 services, about the woman who pours perfume all over Jesus....The main thrust of that passage is how utterly amazing Jesus is, and that we should treasure Him above all. At one point in the sermon, I said something like this: "What if we prayed and worked hard for something, but don't get it? How we respond might give us a clue as to where our treasure really lies." Well, that was probably the most difficult part to say personally, because I knew that part was speaking to me as much as anyone else. Especially when you have to say it 3 times!

...I am, of course, very sad at this change of events, although at the same time, I know God has been faithful all this while and that this time of stretching for the past few months have been good for me. One thing I can say, it hasn't been boring in the least!...There have been many good things about coming home – from being able to be clearer with my parents what my long-term plans are, learning what the situation for Christians is like on the ground, being able to connect with other like-minded evangelicals. There are the trade-offs too: from not being able to benefit from getting further training in Oxford, being unable to build on some of the relationships I've formed there, having to move again for the 3rd time in 3 years.

For the year, I'm going to be based at SMACC. At the moment, I'm not sure what lies beyond 2010. Having spent enough time in full-time paid gospel ministry, I can say for sure that there's nothing else I would rather do, even if it is often hard work. Long-term, I hope to go to theological college, perhaps in 2012 or 2013.

I'll probably reflect on my time in the UK in another post. But my British decade is over. I'm back in Malaysia, a little (maybe even more than a little!) uncertain about what the future holds, but trusting in the God who was willing even to give his only Son to die for me, that I might have new life with him.

2009

It's been an interesting year, I guess. Ignoring my current state of limbo for the moment, I still sometimes pinch myself that I get to do what I do. I am extremely privileged to work for a great gospel-centred, mission-minded church, firm in its convictions yet generous in its partnership. I can obviously tell you of its failings as well - I'm part of it aren't I? - but of the 3 churches I've been a part of in the UK, it's still this one which I truly regard as my home church away from home. They just need to overhaul their website. :-p And working for them has only deepened my appreciation. When I was wrestling with the decision to pursue an apprenticeship, I said to God, (for a variety of reasons) this is really more or less the only place I'll consider doing it. And to my disbelief, God opened the door and said, here you go!

What are some of the things I've learnt and struggled with? I think one of the hardest things is the blurring of lines between what constitutes work and non-work. In one sense, that's a good thing, because it encourages a more integrated, "holistic" if you will, approach to life as opposed to compartmentalising it, a feature of modernity. That's one of the central thrusts of the missional movement, to consider the rhythms of our day-to-day life through the lens of mission. But it's hard too because sometimes you need to switch off but you can't. For the layperson, it would never cross their minds to consider church as "work". For me, it is and isn't, if that makes sense. It does mean learning to rest is very, very important. I now have an inkling what burnout might look like, having veered dangerously close to it in February. And like it or not, being a "full-time" worker also changes the dynamic of your relationship with others as well.

I find one-to-one work rewarding. There's nothing like being able to teach and read and listen and wrestle with God's word together, encouraging someone to grow in grace, to see how God's word and their world might intersect, to pray, and to talk about life together. Of course it can be frustrating. Often I think you don't actually get to see the results of your work. But it's great nonetheless.

Some of my other highlights: the conference I went on right at the beginning of the year, one of the best. The student conference where I was a leader. 2 hours in an ice-cream parlour where it seemed right to follow an important conversation about grace rather than take out my pre-planned Bible study. Money not being a problem this year because of generous friends. A mission trip which I was apprehensive about beforehand but which turned out to be absolutely worth it. Giving talks for the first time. 4 Person of Christ lectures which stretched my mind. Going to watch All-England Championships: Lee Chong Wei! A new Christian going great guns.

Lowlights: Cultural stress. Loneliness, for ministry inevitably carries some of that. A wish for more parental support (although relatively speaking, I think my problem is probably quite mild). Friends who don't want Christ. Orlando Magic losing to LA Lakers: well not really, since I didn't expect them to make the Finals in the first place! :) Of course, visa woes. If the UK Border Agency was a person, I really want to strangle it now. Strangle it! MUAHAHAHA....*looks around sheepishly*

I've got far to go when it comes to depending on God, but hopefully 2009 is yet another small step forward.

'Cause this is a healing song, oh and I've got a heart that fails
But love is pushing me along, I'm lifting up above this veil
This is a healing song, oh and I don't know if you can tell
But love is pushing me along
I'm pressing up against the rail, pressing up against the rail

...You and I, we've come so far
We've come so far, we cannot look back
- Healing Song, Bebo Norman

Thinking through ministry and parents

[This is a bit more of a personal post]

The past month has been difficult. I've felt really disheartened at various points. I've had a few...battles (the word doesn't seem quite right. Disagreements? Skirmishes?) with my parents once they realised that ministry wasn't just some passing fancy I'm into at the moment. While I didn't start my church apprenticeship 15 months ago by announcing to my parents: "I'm going to be a pastor/church planter/missionary for the rest of my life!", I think just doing the apprenticeship signalled that I was definitely exploring the call to full-time paid gospel ministry (thereafter I will simply use "ministry" or "full-time ministry" interchangeably to refer to this). When I sought counsel about the way in which I should engage my parents, the advice I receive was to keep them informed and to gradually open up to them some of my plans, so that it wouldn't be a bolt out of nowhere. I still think that was sound advice. And I believe that for the most part I have. I was up-front, for example, with the fact that I went to talk to a pastor in KL with a view to future options nearly a year ago now.

An apprenticeship is meant to be a testing ground to explore the call into full-time ministry, and simultaneously a stepping stone should it seem as if that call is to be pursued further. And to be honest, everything seems to be pointing that way. The work is very hard, make no mistake, but I love what I do. I appear to have teaching and preaching gifts, even if they still need to be worked hard at. Character, that most important of traits, is harder for me to judge, but I haven't been pulled aside and told that I have such serious transgressions as to be disqualified, if that counts for anything! :) Which is why I'm thinking about this seriously.

But it's hard to communicate with my parents about all this. My parents don't fit neatly into any box - on some fronts, they seem like very traditional Asian parents; on others, they have proved to be more open-minded. I'll say, for instance, that they were more positive about me embarking on my apprenticeship than I expected. Still, they've got a very different worldview from mine. And to be fair, the only models they have to go on are those in Malaysia. I noticed, for example, that they just don't seem to understand, despite me trying to explain it as clearly as I can multiple times (and believe me I've tried!), that people do get paid for this stuff, as yes, they do get paid enough to cover their basic needs at the least! Now, to be honest, I don't know much about pay structure and things like that in Malaysia for those in full-time ministry, but I am realistic enough to know that it's pretty low. (If you know more, please enlighten me in the comments!) In some harder situations, for example, a pastor will have to go bivocational. But that's not going to happen with me with the current options I have. I do think it will be hard. I come from a middle-class background, as is obvious from being able to go to university in the UK. So nice holidays abroad, for example, might no longer be easy to come by on a salary of your average full-timer. But it's not the end of the world.

There's also the "you can still work a full-time job and do ministry on the side" argument: this seems to be a favourite of Asian parents everywhere, as some of my other friends in ministry testify. Well, I had to explain the "full-time" in "full-time ministry", and the value of ministry of the word, but how do you do that when their worldviews are so different? It's made even more complex when I naturally advocate every-member ministry, i.e full-time ministry does not make you more inherently spiritual; there is a sense in which every Christian is full-time. But then to say that there is also a sense in which some people are set apart for full-time ministry. Regular readers of the blog will remember that I preached from Ephesians 4:7-16 over a month ago, which touches on this very issue. Frustratingly for me, it seems as if every church member apart from my parents understood what I was going on about!

And then there's the "you should gain experience in the real world first" argument. This one I've thought about long and hard, because this argument has validity. After all, I am very young. And I think every young person thinking about full-time ministry must wrestle hard with this. In the end, though, I think this one has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Why? There are quite a few reasons. Firstly, it isn't always the case that you must experience something to be able to minister effectively into that situation. After all, no one person will ever experience the full range of possible experiences. If you get married and have kids, then you have traded off the experience of being single into your old age, and vice versa. Would you say the married/single person has nothing to offer the person of different marital status simply because he or she has never had that experience? Now, that's not to say experience in the working world is not valuable, and it could definitely give you unique insights that are not available elsewhere. What is it like to work for a prickly non-Christian boss? When everyone is busy handing out duit kopi? But I'm trying to say that it's not the clinching argument. For some, they will benefit from time in the working world. For others, it's not necessary.

Also, I do sometimes bristle at the fact that Christian ministry isn't the "real world". I've met up with a non-Christian managing director of a publishing company at least 10 years, if not more, older than me to read the Bible together and to talk about life. I've sat with a homeless person and warmed up his sandwich. I laughed together with PhD students and discussed pressing academic matters. I work in a cross-cultural situation as the only non-Western staff member of my church. Granted, my experiences of the world look different, but is this less "real-world"? The other thing to consider is the difference in age and how that dynamic works in an Asian culture. I've thought about it. And I think this means that it's definitely true that I probably won't gain a hearing from them initially. But does that disqualify younger ones like me automatically from ministry? No, it means I have to work hard at every aspect of my godliness, to be a bit more tentative in some of the things I say, to be quick to listen and slow to speak to older heads.

You probably think from my above two paragraphs that I've already made up my mind to go full-time straight away. Believe it or not, I haven't. I spoke to our long-term mission partner, who is a British-born Chinese (Malaysian and HK parents), when I was on a mission to X Country in the summer. He has first-hand experience of parental opposition. And he offered really good advice. One reason in favour of working a "secular" job is simply to grow up a bit. Now I think sometimes I am in need of that! But he cautioned against taking a secular job simply to "earn credibility". That advice takes on renewed force now that I know some of my mum's friends have been whispering amongst themselves about the son who went to a highly esteemed university but is thinking about taking a job that doesn't command much respect! (These are professing Christians, btw, and I confess to dreaming up some rather unChristian retorts). But that has made me pause about completely rushing in. At the same time, since I've been back, one thing that has been hugely emphasised is the urgency of the task. Malaysia is really lacking in full-time Christian workers, and more than one person has independently expressed their concern to me about the next generation and whether we lose the ground that was so hard-won. So there is definitely a part of me that simply wants to press on and not dither.

Oh, and of course, there's the classic Ephesians 6:2 argument, a favourite of all Asian Christian parents. I always think, how about verse 4? But what has helped early on is recognising honouring your parents does not mean obeying them in everything. Of course, we have to be careful - that doesn't suddenly mean you can justify your every disobedient action! But v.4 does provide supporting context. It's not just that parents are not to exasperate their children, but that they are to do so by instructing their children in the ways of the Lord. And so to honour your parents is to walk in the way of the Lord, in line with the task God has set them, which can sometimes mean not going with their every whim! (The mission partner I mentioned earlier also had some interesting exegetical support from Exodus, but I'm not sure I can completely recall it now so don't want to put words in his mouth).

Wow, you're probably thinking I've been so calm and reasoned! Trust me, I'm not. I have been upset with myself that I have gotten argumentative and defensive with my parents so easily and quickly! And I don't want to paint my parents as the veritable bad guys. I have to understand how their worldview and life experiences has impacted them, and I am actually confident that in the long term, they will be supportive. But it's been very disappointing not to feel their support now, though it was expected. And it is quite hard when you're treated like a kid when others treat you like an adult! They seem to think I've been very gung-ho when really, my temperament (and more importantly, the fact that God surely doesn't like impetuous fools) militates against it. Instead, I've been torturing myself with "should I or shouldn't I?"

Well, I was going to write more on some of the more disheartening moments in the past month, but those are nothing to do with parents, so that will have to be for another post. Comments welcome.



† Expand post

If I were a Christian filmmaker/scriptwriter

WN asked me today: if I was a Christian filmmaker/scriptwriter, what sort of film would I make? He caught me off-guard and I had to say I didn't know. So here's an attempt at an answer. This isn't new, but it's worth restating.

Firstly, every person and every culture has a Big Story, one in which they both shape and are shaped by. Within this Big Story there might be many sub-plots. However, the movement in each of these stories will include in some form creation-fall-redemption-restoration. Any story will seek an answer, explicitly or implicitly, to the well-known four questions posed by Richard Middleton and Brian Walsh:

1. Who am I? Or what is the nature, task, and purpose of human beings?
2. Where am I? Or What is the nature of the world and universe we live in?
3. What's wrong? Or what is the basic problem or obstacle that keeps me from obtaining fulfillment?
4. What is the remedy? How do I solve this problem or where do I find salvation?

This includes films. It could be said, in fact, that films are one of the primary ways in which people attempt to make sense of their place in the world today. Whether they ponder over a so-called weighty film or simply seek solace in a light-hearted comedy, they are still in some way engaging in the task of sense-making. Every film, in summary, offers a vision of what the world is like, and how the world ought to be.

The Christian filmmaker or scriptwriter is aware that his faith claims to have the True Story. We understand that we are to understand humanity in light of God and of sin, and we know where redemption is to be found. Therefore, "it follows that storytellers in our Christian community carry a major responsibility for keeping us alert to these stories and the way they work." (Eugene Peterson). This is because stories can grab us in ways mere arguments can't, and stories always reveal something about their creators. "We feel the emotions, get caught up in the drama, identify with the characters, see into nooks and crannies of life that we had overlooked, realize there is more to this business of being human tan we had yet explored. If the storyteller is good, doors and windows open." (Peterson) So if I were a Christian film-maker or scriptwriter, then I must offer a vision of how the world is like, and how it ought to be, in line with a Christian worldview.

But how I go about that is up to me and my (imagined!) creativity! The possibilities are vast. Think of some recent films. The Dark Knight, for example, might seem to be the antithesis of what a Christian film-maker should offer, but one of the things the film does so effectively is offer a very chilling vision, via the Joker, of what a world ruled by chance and randomness rather than God would look like. This is not to claim that the Dark Knight is a "Christian" movie. Nonetheless, it is extremely effective at jolting us out of our complacency and opening our eyes to the hideousness of a fallen world. Any script that can do that is worth exploring, although I would never allow it to fall into a hopeless cesspool of despair. If in Genesis 3, God himself already offers hints of hope (v.15), then surely we should do the same.

But a Christian filmmaker doesn't have to be so "arty". I think one sort of film I might like to make is a romantic comedy which doesn't envision the partner as the saviour who "makes me whole". That would be incredibly counter-cultural. If it's done well, I think that would have a bigger impact than some "weighty" film. What the viewer of such a film will encounter is the truth that even Mr. or Mrs. Right can't function as your redeemer. What would be great too is a film that celebrates marriage, as most recently Fireproof does, given the dominant image of marriage in films to be dowdy and "a trap". [Spoiler alert] I can't remember much of the film Forces of Nature, but I do remember the ending, where the main character chooses to go back to his marriage partner instead of making off with his fling. That came as a genuine shock. I don't remember the rest of the film being very good, but if it had been better executed, then I can imagine that ending carrying a real poignancy and weight about it. [end spoiler alert]

Does a Christian filmmaker need to make an explicitly "Christian" film, i.e one in which the gospel is proclaimed? Well, they could. I would love to see a film with actual characters with an evangelical faith, not cardboard stereotypes, and if I were a good film-maker, I would love to explore such a character. But I don't think a Christian film-maker necessarily needs to do so. A film should rest on the foundational biblical storyline, and perhaps show the weaknesses of an alternative storyline, but it doesn't always have to be about the climax of that storyline (the gospel event). We could show the beauty in the everyday, in the nature of true friendship, for example. I'm thinking of something like The Station Agent. Or the nature of true sacrifice in some epic. And so on.

I suppose there's plenty more to be said, but hopefully that provides the beginnings of an answer!

You can also browse some of my previous posts on films


† Expand post

Observations on being home

If you haven't figured it out yet, I am still in Malaysia, and have been for the last 6 weeks or so. The process of resolving whether I can get a new visa is still frustratingly slow. It's certainly nice to be back home, but once you've started getting used to having your favourite foods available again, being in limbo does wear on you. People have been very nice and have tried to be encouraging; more than one person has said to me: "You've been working too hard, so you should enjoy the holiday!" There's also no doubt that God has brought me back for good reasons, some of which I can guess at, others I might not know. But I am raring to head back. Anyway, here's a bunch of stuff I've been picking up.

Reverse culture shock #1. After being in an egalitarian society where 70 year olds expect me to call them Mike, not Mr. Jones, and to discuss things on a peer-to-peer level, I'm finding myself a little confused about what is and what isn't appropriate to talk about with those older than me. I think it doesn't help that there're degrees of differentiation too! My family would be a bit more traditional and there's more of a hierarchical mindset, whereas my church is relatively speaking, much more relaxed. I suspect I'm erring excessively on the polite side.

Reverse culture shock #2. So when an uncle (in Malaysia, anyone who is reasonably older than you is often addressed as such, not just family. No responsibility is taken if you misjudge somebody's age!) offered me coffee, I said immediately: "Yes, please!" After watching his body language thereafter, I realised then that I should have played the "No No" game, making some tentative refusals before accepting his offer. Ergh.

Reverse culture shock #3. Most of the literature dealing with this subject note that symptoms often include

Difficulties explaining coherently your time and experiences abroad. Those who listen don't have the frame of reference or travel background to understand.

Reverse 'home' sickness. Feelings of being lost and lonely.

The relationships at home have changed. The returnees as well as those who stayed at home have altered.
I think I've experienced bits of this, and it's reminded me that when I finally come back home long-term, whenever that might be, I would have to deal with this.

Theory and praxis. I think it was the veteran missionary Martin Goldsmith, who used to pastor a church in Malaysia, who said: "Asian (or was it Malaysian?) Christians are short on theology, long on ethics." By that he meant that Asians tend to dislike theoretical musings for its own sake, but want to see its connection to daily life, the "real world" if you like. Otherwise it would just be dismissed as irrelevant. This has positives and negatives. Positively, it immediately lends Christian reflection a pastoral and missional orientation. Theory and practice must not be separated. Negatively, this often leads to pragmatism, whatever works. They just want to know "what to do", and to think too deeply is "unspiritual". I bring this up because I am sensing this a little.

Bible study. I was also thinking about how our Bible studies work. In Asian Bible studies, it is common for people to immediately think about their own experiences and contexts and to share them as they go through a passage. I was previously very critical of this, and I think there is good reason to be. There's always the danger of reading our own experiences into the text and seeing things which aren't actually there. Tangents also often lead the group to chasing red herrings and completely missing the main point.

But I now think I've allowed myself to be over-critical. Rightly done, I see that there is a lot of value in just naturally intertwining our understanding on the passage with reflections on our lives. I've been observing my home fellowship group and though we don't always get it right (and to be fair, who does?), I thought that for the most part, whenever somebody shares or offers a reflection, it's been tied to the text and not just some random whimsy to offer a thought for the day. It's just their way in which they allow the Bible to bear on our lives. In fact, it's challenged me because I probably don't let God's word really peer as deep into my soul as it should. I suppose the cultural anthropologists might argue that this is because "Western" thinking is more linear and "Eastern" thinking is more circular. So while the principles remain the same: we need to know what the Bible says and means before we can apply it to our lives, there is a variety of models, and I know I can't lead a Bible study here exactly the same way as I would in the UK.

Social networking. Media commentators have picked up on this (eg: here, here, and here), but seeing it for myself was quite different. I was quite stunned by the virtual connectedness of the teenagers in my youth group. The amount of photos taken and placed on Facebook was quite something. Again, social commentators have noticed that we are once more heading into a world where the boundaries between the public and private spheres are blurred, as it was in a pre-industrialised age. But it's still jarring to see photos of myself that I didn't even know were being taken suddenly appear on the Net!

Spiritual warfare. I wasn't home for that long before I heard of a case of demon possession. Growing up, of course, it's not that rare to hear such stories, but it reminded me once again that it's certainly one area to think about for anyone wanting to do ministry in Malaysia. What you don't want is to capitulate to the latest faddish teaching on the one hand or to ignore the spiritual realm on the other.

Wrestling in prayer. I think I identify a little more with the psalmist now. "Lord, please help me to trust you. I know you are sovereign over all, I know that you are good, and that your plans are best, so whatever the outcome is, help me to accept it. [clenches teeth] Lord, help me not to be so half-hearted in what I just said. It's going to be hard if you don't allow me to go back, but help me to grow in my trust. But God, I do believe you are a generous Father, and that Christianity ain't fatalism. My prayers do count for something, don't they? So do the prayers of others? So I pray you'd allow me to head back - I don't see how that's a bad thing. [Pause] I mean, Lord, I'm not actually presuming to tell you what's best for me, oh no, not at all. But it's a fair request? [Pause] Ummm, but I know you're more concerned about me being more like Jesus, more concerned about being more like what you've made me to be than where I am. Consider it all joy and all that. So ummm, help me trust you again no matter what. [Deep breath] But...pretty please?" It's ping-pong prayer, back and forth, back and forth.

Sin. You'd like to think that you've grown stronger, and then you come into a stressful situation and learn that your sinful patterns are more entrenched than you realise. Thank God for his grace.



† Expand post

Assimilation and identity

The late missiologist Paul Hiebert, together with Young Hertig, has an interesting though dated (1993) article on Asian immigrants in urban cities, with particular reference to North America. They examine the issue of identity and assimilation, suggesting that the core question is: to which culture does the immigrant really belong? Each generation after immigration approaches and answers this in a different way.

1. First generation - clear sense of identity. That is, their identity is very much tied to their "home" culture. They might develop survival skills to cope in the new culture, but their values, beliefs, things & events they find significant etc., are those of "home". If women come from patriarchal cultures, they are unlikely to be exposed much to the new culture, from staying at home etc., and so are often isolated.

2. 2nd generation - deep identity crisis. They encounter schizophrenia, for at home and within the family, they absorb certain values and beliefs, but in school and public are enculturated into the new culture. So you have a clash, with this generation often having to make decisions about how much to take on board parental values, resulting either in withdrawal, rebellion, or more likely, compartmentalization. The best case scenario is if one is able to integrate the best of both worlds. Add in other factors such as the different paces at which siblings within a family might assimilate and it gets even more complicated. One critical factor in the assimilation of second generation young people is the attitude of their parents. Other factors like social mobility etc. all count for something too.

3. 3rd and 4th generation - assimilation and appreciation. Here the identity crisis is not so acute, because they have figured out their place in society more, whether by carving out a niche for themselves or completely assimilating. But when we get to 4th/5th generation, we find that some begin to seek their roots once more, especially if their racial features are more distinct. Here we may find the problem of "hidden immigrants" - eg. looking Chinese on the outside but born and bred in America, and so actually being completely different culturally.

Also, at a deeper level, language becomes an issue. Hiebert and Hertig quote Cheryl, a Korean teenager in LA: "I try to speak Korean when I talk with my mother, but the most important emotional stuff I say in English because I cannot express it in Korean. So my mother does not have any idea what I am trying to say. It is really frustrating. I don't understand why she does not try to learn English. She has lived here almost twenty years." I think a few of us Malaysians will share similar experiences.

So why am I blogging about all this? There's the personal side, of course: I have often wrestled with questions such as this partly due to my upbringing, my family and educational background, the friends that I have, and of course, as someone involved in ministry with international students in a Western country. And because I just wanted to see if I could stimulate some thoughts from my readers, and the article above provides some important intercultural, and indeed, intergenerational insights which are relevant for the Malaysian context, although obviously we are very different in many ways. I think, for example, of the differences between English and Chinese-educated Chinese and the questions of trying to "preserve" a culture versus the "interaction" of cultures. Or the often frustrating family dynamics that those of us who are younger struggle to decipher - why are parents always so obtuse? (Apologies for the examples being obviously Chinese, that's my makeup). Or the wider politics of race and racial discourse - would you describe yourself as Malaysian or Malay/Indian/Chinese/Bumiputra/Iban/Kadazan/Martian first? I actually assert my "Malaysianness" more, I think, but I know others will differ from me.

Some might take exception to using an article on the "immigrant experience" to draw parallels to the Malaysian situation, since "immigrant" itself is a contested term in Malaysia. A big number of us will resent being labelled as pendatang, as if we were 2nd class citizens. That, of course, is to miss the point. It's simply a historical fact that many of us will have ancestors who at some point immigrated to what we now call Malaysia. I know we live in a plural society, so I wonder if we're not so much assimilating into a clearly marked majority/mainstream culture as forging a distinctively "Malaysian" culture, although again what that is is up for debate. How do you compare Sino-Kadazans in Sabah with the Nyonyas in Malacca? But maybe again the lack of flattening is a good thing. It means we're more aware that we all have particular categories and assumptions that affect how we view the world.

Plus, these are questions, I am convinced, we need to reflect on as Malaysian Christians, especially as it impacts on things like pastoral practice, evangelism and so on. It also challenges us to consider afresh what it means to consider ourselves to be Christians first and foremost, to be sojourners in this age. As Tim Kellers notes:

"Identity is a complex set of layers, for we are many things. Our occupation, ethnic identity, etc., are part of who we are. But we assign different values to these components and thus Christian maturing is a process in which the most fundamental layer of our identity becomes our self-understanding as a new creature in Christ along with all our privileges in him."

OK, I've rambled with no clear direction for long enough. Comments welcome. For more on the migrant experience, I can think of no better teacher than the short stories of Jhumpa Lahiri. For an intro to cross-cultural issues, try Sarah Lanier's From Foreign to Familiar or some of Duane Elmer's books.



† Expand post

Litany of complaints

I was at a dinner tonight, and as is fairly common at such occasions, conversation soon turned towards the injustice located in the structures of Malaysian society. There was the litany of complaints directed at our education system, corrupt bureaucracy and so on.

I've been thinking about why I usually feel a little uncomfortable whenever the floodgates open. OK, so part of it is probably that by nature, I'm not a happy bunny when it comes to conflict. I like the still waters, not the grand rapids, thank you very much. Maybe I'm guilty of apathy. But I do believe that to pretend that all is well, to be tidak apa about the wrongs that the innocent suffer, the way that so many crooks seem to get away with their abuse of power, is wrong, plain and simple. It's also probably fair to say that in context, the 2008 political tsunami notwithstanding, such talk arises perhaps because there is a feeling that we need to be woken up from our general malaise. We can't maintain the status quo forever. So such conversations are full of heat and light.

And yet. Here are a few reasons why I feel unsettled whenever such talk occurs among Christians (btw, this isn't necessarily true of tonight's conversations; they simply sparked the thought):

1. These conversations sometimes have the whiff of self-righteousness around them. Look at how rubbish everything else is. It's as if the taint of sin has affected everything and everyone apart from the one pontificating away. We feel justified by the way we remain above the fray. The purity of our motives. Surely there must be a humbler way to express our anger and sadness at the way the current system is broken.

2. These conversations are often tinged with cynicism. Things will always be this way. It's better to send our children away. I'm like, whatever happened to God bringing all things in heaven and earth under Christ? Whatever happened to God putting the world to rights? Maybe again, by nature, I'm an idealist, a romantic, a head-in-the-clouds kind of guy, but it seems to me that Christians have the gospel - good news - the good news that shouts "Jesus is the crucified King!" and calls on us to turn from sin to the living God. And that should shape our responses to injustice.

3. These conversations lose sight of God. My immediate point above suggests that sometimes we act more like fatalists than theists. We forget God is on the throne. He does care about what goes on in his world, not just churchy things. He can effect change, and he loves to use his people to do it. And although contemporary Christianity sometimes shun the image of God as judge, it's actually good news, because it reveals our God is just; the bad guys aren't gonna get away with it. But our God is a merciful God as well. And this is great news, because to our horror, we discover that actually, we are more like those we condemn than we care to admit. We too are in need of mercy, and in view of God's mercy, we offer our bodies as living sacrifices, not the other way around.

O Lord, the next time we are tempted to recite from the Book of Common Complaints, help us to remember instead the Lord's Prayer. For there we find nourishment in remembering who our Father is, strength as we ask for his kingdom to come, and humility as we acknowledge our need for forgiveness. Then maybe we can go out into the world and shine like stars in the universe, as we hold out the word of life.

excerpts

[Warning: potentially explosive]

"...And so the light of candle three
Today, is meant to help us see,
That waiting is a holy work
Of faith in God. Nor does there lurk
Beneath the timing of his ways
Some secret malice that displays
Itself in holding back the flow
Of future grace. God does not go
From here to there by shortest routes;
He makes a place for faith and doubts.
Nor does he hasten on his way,
But comes when it is best, today,
Or maybe twenty years from now,
Or more."
- John Piper

The Law is for the proud and the Gospel is for the brokenhearted.
- Martin Luther

Lord cut, Lord carve, Lord wound, Lord do anything that may perfect Thy Father's image in us...
- Samuel Rutherford, from a letter written in 1638

On making your preaching debut in your home church

So I've just read this a few minutes ago... (HT: JT)

Your first few sermons are always terrible, no matter who you are.

If you think your first few sermons are great, you’re probably self-deceived. If the folks in your home church think your first few sermons are great, it’s probably because they love you and they’re proud of you. If it’s a good, supportive church there’s as much objectivity there as a grandparent evaluating the “I Love You Grandma” artwork handed to them by the five year-old in their family...

So what?

The great thing about Christian ministry is that Jesus doesn’t start all over again with his church every generation. He gives older men in ministry who shape, disciple, and direct younger men in ministry. This includes (although it’s not limited to) critiquing your sermons...

...Your bad sermon says nothing about your future. If you’ve got folks in your life saying, “Hey, that was a really bad sermon,” that does indicate something about your future, so praise God for it. It’s probaby a sign that God has something for you to say, for the rest of your life.

:D Absolutely right. Well, no one told me it was bad this morning. Although I'm very glad no one said outright: "That was a good talk." That's one of the worse things to hear, because you're never quite sure what the definition of "good" is. Are you just being polite? Did you like the sound of my voice? (Doubtful). I remember the first evangelistic talk I gave and a non-Christian came up afterwards to thank me for a "good" talk. I winced internally, because to me it was clear the challenge of Jesus' claims had completely passed him by. It's more gratifying when someone says, as happened this morning: "That's the word we all needed to hear." And even more specific adjectives, like "clear", are preferable, I think.

I suppose the one disappointing, though not entirely surprising, thing for me is that my parents, who heard me speak for the first time today, just didn't really quite know what to make of it; both the point of the talk, and the fact that it was their son who was giving it. They discussed some of the other items which were shared this morning, but they pointedly avoided any discussion of mine. One rule I sometimes use in writing talks is: would my mum get the main point? And maybe I failed.

The other thing that's really difficult, of course, is for the preacher to consciously point away from oneself. The lines from Kate Wilkinson's hymn is one I will constantly need to repeat to myself: "And may they forget the channel / Seeing only him".

Disdain disdain

disdain. to look upon or treat with contempt; despise; scorn

In the book Workers for the Harvest Field, David Jackman recounts an interview with a ministry candidate. This person had been going on and on about how much he loved to teach the Bible when Jackman's colleague interrupted him: "Yes, but do you the people you'll teach it to?"

I've often thought about this question - do I love people, especially those whom I encounter as someone in "ministry"? If in my eyes, people simply become projects to moan and fret over, then I might as well quit. Any ministry of the Word that I do, excepting God's grace to work through jars of clay, might as well be a yodelling performance for all they care. That's what John Wesley apparently told one of his proteges: "Your temper is uneven; you lack love for your neighbours. You grow angry too easily; your tongue is too sharp - thus, the people will not hear you".

I have struggled with this. I think of the person I've been reading the Bible one-to-one with this year. I think there are times when, after going through the same thing for the umpteenth time, I have thought to myself: 'Why don't you just get it (and become a 'better Christian'?...and show what a brilliant discipler I am...and on it goes)". I think of a recent cell group Bible study I was in - if you think it's you I'm talking about, it isn't :) - and how frustrating it was. It was so easy to heap scorn onto them, to flash my inductive Bible study credentials, spit out a tonnage of verbiage and leave the room with gold dust on the floor and stars in their eyes. But these are Christians, people who are trying to follow Jesus in their imperfect ways, people who carry baggage around with them, in other words, people like me. I think too of how easy it is to disdain those who seem to have so reductionistic, so shallow an understanding of the gospel. Can't they see it's about the kingdom of God? Why aren't they at the forefront of political activism? Or why are they always taking verses out of context? Or why are they always protesting against Harry and his Da Vinci Materials?

But when I look at the Bible, I see something different. God in the Old Testament is portrayed as a warrior, and the Exodus can be seen as a great victory of a great king. Yet in Psalm 78 God is described as leading his people like sheep through the desert. In Hosea, I see God despairing of his hard-hearted people, but telling them, how can I give you up? I look at Jesus, looking over the crowd, and having great compassion on them because they were lost. I look at the way he treats the rich young man, with that beautiful line: "Jesus looked at him and loved him" (Mark 10:21). He is the good shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep. To be sure, we see Jesus getting exasperated with his disciples and even more antsy with the Pharisees. And I don't think I'm saying that there is no place for criticism or even a bit of a kick up the you know where. That evangelicalism is in need of a shot in the arm is not in question. It's just not the point of this post.

I'm part of a messy community. A community that's slow to learn. That includes myself. I long to see it become more conformed to how God wants it to be, but sometimes it seems as if we're heading the opposite direction! But God says his Word does not return to him empty (Isaiah 55:10); it is effective. And so I am committed to a ministry of the Word, however it might look like, from formal teaching to informal encouraging, allowing the gospel to be applied specifically to our lives. That means there are battles to be fought, because such a commitment is not going to be unopposed, not least by the devil. But when I become self-righteous, when I start looking at disdain at others, that's when I've forgotten the gospel of Jesus myself. When I become impatient, I've forgotten how patient God has been with me in calling me to himself.

I don't want that to happen. Oh Lord, how we need to know your grace again!

The Word in the week

James 1:13-27 is a mirror. Well, actually, it isn't just James; all of Scripture is a mirror, according to verse 23. It reflects reality, life as it really is. I was looking at this passage recently, and was thoroughly surprised by it - there are things that doesn't quite say what I thought it said, but for now, I just want to concentrate on verse 18.

"[God] chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created."

God is the subject. And he's good. Trustworthy. Generous. James make sure that our picture of God is right in the preceding verse. This is our God. What has he done? He has given us new life! He's taken the initiative. We had nothing to do with it. How so? Through his word, which is implanted in us, which can save us, according to verse 21. It is again, something he has graciously gifted us with. And to what purpose? That we might have the blessing of growing and persevering as Christians, becoming more like Jesus, and so give our Creator the glory.

I guess the main reason I mention this passage is that in one sense, it sums up last week for me.

1. On Tuesday evening, I went out with a good friend I haven't seen in several years. It was great to laugh and reminiscince. But the best part was getting to talk about Jesus and Christianity for 90+ minutes or so. My friend has shown interest in so-called spiritual things before, and God was kind enough to, through a friendship that has endured all these years, let me win his respect enough to gain a hearing. I briefly talked him through the big turning points of the Christian story: creation, fall, redemption. We chatted about how God was the Big Boss, the one who is in charge of the universe. We saw how sin wasn't merely bad behaviour, but how the heart of it was a wilful desire to place ourselves as God, which in turn estranges us from Him. I confess to stumbling a bit when getting to Jesus (the one place you don't want to stumble!), but again, God was gracious and I went to one of my favourite passages in this situation, that of Jesus and the rich young man. I did wish I had spent more time talking about justification, especially as one of his questions concerned that point.

We also talked about relativism and how on closer inspection it doesn't hold up. He was very honest and said that although he was a relativist, he can see how that wasn't very solid ground to stand on. He was also very honest in his own assessment: if the essence of sin was as described above, than he was worshipping himself, and well, he didn't really want to give that up yet. I listened too as he told me a little about Buddhism - he comes from a Buddhist background - but how he was finding that enslaving. Towards the end of the evening, he said something along the lines of how he was trying to find and please God, whoever he was, and hope for the best, and I felt led at that point simply to turn to Acts 17:22ff. Having gotten his permission, I simply read out Paul's sermon to the Greeks. It was amazing how relevant it felt at that moment. I didn't have to fumble for an answer, the Bible was doing the talking for me!

We parted, having consumed copious amounts of fluids, with him saying that he would definitely look more into Christianity. I've suggested a few titles for him to read, apart from looking into a gospel itself, and pray that God would be working new birth in him.

2. On Friday evening and most of Saturday, I went along to the Kuching Bible Conference, which I only knew existed last week! It's a conference seeking to encourage expository preaching by modelling it, similar to the aims of its Klang Valley counterpart. This excited me greatly. Expository preaching sometimes does have a bad name, partly because people have seen it poorly modelled and assume that it's simply another synonym for lecturing. Which of course, it isn't! Apparently Christopher Ash spoke last year, and he would be as good a model as any. This year we had John Carter, an elder from a church in Leeds with vast experience. He certainly worked us hard through the letter of Galatians! If I had one criticism, it was that he was good on the detail but not so good on the flow of thought, so that it was hard to see what the big picture of Galatians was. But ignore this armchair critic - it's good to see this initiative in my hometown, and especially good to see some of the movers behind this conference was definitely not whom you normally expect to be behind this sort of thing! Because how does God work? He works through the "word of truth".

3. The real highlight of the week for me, though, was Saturday evening, as you can tell from my previous post. Going to the youth group brought back fond memories for me. But without a doubt, although I was nervous going in, the happiest bits were spending some time with the Form 4s (that's 16 year olds) and hopefully allowing one Bible study to become a fond memory for them. To be able to laugh, discuss the pertinent questions of identity, and to actually get them looking in the Bible and be able to see that God's word does speak into their lives (and mine). My mum looked at some of the material I prepared and cautioned me about pitching it too high. So I had a look at it again, but I thought: no, one or two of the questions are hard and they'll need some guidance, but that's ok. They can get this. And they did!

Now that more time has elapsed since Saturday evening, I can now think of lots more things I wished I've done better. But God's word, as we looked at it, was working in us, so that "we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created." That's all you could ask for. They probably won't remember the specific study years, months, maybe even weeks, from now. But maybe the Holy Spirit will help them remember that God is gracious. Good. Trustworthy. And generous. And they'll thank Jesus.



† Expand post

So you think you can handle it, eh?

I've lead Bible studies with PhD students, and I've read one-to-one with a managing director of a company, and I've told Bible stories to under-5s*...

So tell me, why am I utterly terrified to be leading a Bible study for teenagers tomorrow evening?

Maybe because God will decide tomorrow that BK could do with a huge helping of humility...

To be fair, I am excited too!

*If you thought PhD students asked hard questions, I'm sorry, you got it backwards...

UPDATE Saturday 17/10: Well I had a real blast! My group were a little quiet and shy understandably but we were definitely looking into the Word and having loads of fun by the end of it. I liked them, and for my sake, they pretended they liked me. :) Especially gratifying to hear them articulate the main points of the study and especially what Jesus had done when our youth co-ordinator got every group to review what they've learnt at the end. Alongside reindeers, murdering basketball players, and "The Shirt"....

Making sense of Matthew 17

I read Matthew 17 for my quiet time today, and I'm trying to figure it out. Maybe I'm dense, but I'm not sure I get it! So am using this blog to untangle some thoughts. You probably need the passage open in front of you somewhere to follow me.

What we have here is the transfiguration account, the healing of a demonised boy, and an incident peculiar to Matthew's gospel on paying the temple tax. I don't recall ever reading about the temple tax before. In the wider context, Simon Peter has just confessed that Jesus is the Christ in 16:16. Jesus now begins to stress how he must go to Jerusalem and be killed, and that he would be raised to life. We see this in 16:21, repeated in 17:9, 12b, 22-23 and later on in 20:18-19. This isn't exactly what Peter wanted to hear! But Jesus rebukes him, and teaches that he is to be the suffering Christ. To follow him is to take up your own cross. This is the path for his disciples. But this isn't the end of the story, as 16:27-28 indicate. Jesus will reign gloriously when he resurrects. V.28 seems to point towards the immediate aftermath of his resurrection, while v.27 appears to look further along towards the second coming. Cross before resurrection, suffering before glory. That's the pattern Jesus is teaching, both for his own ministry and that of his disciples.

v.1-13
This teaching of Jesus, therefore, seems to be re-affirmed by the transfiguration episode. We heard that Jesus will come in glory, here we see Jesus appearing in glory! Jesus is reaffirmed by God the Father in v.5, with the same words as when he was baptised. This time there is also an addition: "Listen to him!" Listen to what he's just been teaching about suffering and glory!

The disciples are just as confused as ever though. In Mark's account, he records how they discuss what "raised from the dead" mean. Their thought processes go something like this:
ok, we're waiting for the Messiah,
who will put the world to rights again
(this is when resurrection happens, right?)
but Elijah's meant to come first to prepare the way.
Wait a minute, where's Elijah?

But Jesus corrects their understanding. Elijah's here already! He's John the Baptist (v.13). So that means the Messiah is here! But this Messiah isn't what you expect - he "is going to suffer at their hands". Actually, that's what happened to John the Baptist (v.12). Suffering before glory, again.

v.14-23
Then we get the story about the exorcism of the boy. Disciples failed, Jesus didn't. I was a bit puzzled by this account. Is this simply a story suggesting that if we have enough faith, we'll have a powerful deliverance ministry? What we have to do is to simply believe? That seems, at first glance, to be a plausible interpretation. But a closer look suggests otherwise. v.22-23 has Jesus teaching about his impending death and resurrection again, which he obviously thinks is important. That doesn't sit well with simply interpreting this story as Jesus giving a model example of how to cast out demons.

Rather, in v.17 it seems better to understand Jesus' rebuke as a continued failure to actually trust in the words of Jesus. Peter's rebuke of Jesus that he could not be killed at the end of chapter 16 is one of many examples. No wonder Jesus is exasperated and possibly resulted in him putting in a quick call to his Father: "Dad, they're not listening! Could you tell them to?" (v.5) Their unbelief was not so much a failure of technique ("maybe we didn't quite have the required deposit of faith to cast out the demon!") but more of a failure to depend on God and trust what Jesus says. That's why Jesus repeats his teaching (v.22-23). So while there is probably something to be gleaned here about deliverance ministry, that's not the main point at all. Certainly it isn't a call to us to look for demons behind every sickness! What Jesus wants to emphasise is a dependence and trust in him. That might result in us actually performing an exorcism if God chooses to, but the authority belongs to him alone.

v.24-27
Errr...this one ah, I'm not surelah. Apparently, Jewish males of a certain age had to pay taxes for the upkeep of the temple. Jesus' point in his exchange with Peter seems to be that the tax is now void. That's because of who Jesus is - he is God's King. (And presumably what he's about to do, go to the cross). But then Jesus chooses to lay down his right and pay the tax, something Paul probably took note of since it will come out in his writings.

Summary
So I guess the big point here is that Jesus is showing that he is the King (Christ) and we should listen to him, trust in Him. But He is the Suffering King, who will go to the cross to die for us. But to follow Him is not a futile exercise, for even though we too have to take up our cross, there is glory in the end. So let us praise God and remain faithful.

What do you think?



† Expand post

Carrying around death

There's a particular phrase that, for some reason, refuses to be dislodged from the crevice of my mind today. It comes from Paul's second letter to the Corinthians, as found in the Bible. "We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus..." (4:10).

Mind-blowing, isn't it? I just can't get over it. We always carry around / in our body / the death of Jesus.

The spectre of death is present right from the beginning. This is an impassioned and deeply personal letter, and it throbs with emotional intensity. Imagine a dearly cherished friend, away in a foreign land, possibly a dangerous one. You're ripping the envelope apart the moment you spot that he's arrived in epistolary form in today's post. Bite your lip, as you read of some hardship so severe, that he "despaired even of life" (1:8) and felt the "sentence of death" (1:9). Try to ignore, unsuccessfully, the pangs of regret, about the previous "painful visit", where one of your own had spoken out against him. Hurts more than a hundred opponents. And that earlier letter of heartfelt admonishment - oh that letter! At least it's gone now - one filled with "great distress", "anguish of heart" and "many tears" (2:4). The sorrow from having to discipline someone on the same side is felt on both sides of this correspondence.

But our friend, Paul, knows who his God is. He is the "Father of mercies and God of all comfort" (1:3). Comfort, comfort, says Isaiah the prophet centuries ago. Comfort, comfort, Paul repeats, ten times in 5 verses (1:3-7). He is weak, but God's power works amidst such weakness, the most famous soundbite in this letter (12:9). All he needs is God's provision, for "our sufficiency is from God" (3:5 ESV). Not rhetoric, or charisma, or "success" shown in the absence of suffering, thus "proving" divine favour. The God who creates simply by speaking, and who removes veils from eyes, is at work; we only serve him (4:1ff). 'Paul therefore allows his humanness, his vulnerability, his seeming inadequacies to remain visible, so that when people look at him they will not see another paradigm of the myth of self-justification, but rather the fire of God's favour and power glowing through the translucent walls of an ordinary clay vessel.' [1]

We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. Four verse ten.

As I think about this, I find myself trying to escape the implications of what Paul is saying. To carry around the death of Jesus is basically saying, to die to myself every day. It's saying, persevere even though it's hard. And to persevere, you need to keep coming to Jesus, and not to yourself because that's the only way it's gonna happen. Gospel ministry can work no other way. But who wants to die? That difficult relationship with that person, when it's much easier, much less tiring to keep a distance? We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus. Tempted to subtly promote yourself, or put others down? We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus. Don't want to be awkward at the expense of truth and integrity? We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus.

Yes, I know, this Christianity thing, it's no mere psychological crutch, is it? But the promise is that true comfort, not a shallow one, is found from leaning on Jesus, who died and rose again for us. "So we do not lose heart" (4:16)


[1] An introduction to the New Testament: contexts, methods and ministry formation, David DeSilva, p.587


† Expand post

Marriage

I read with interest a provocative article that recently appeared in Christianity Today: The Case for Early Marriage. The author, Mark Regnerus, notes that current sexual/marital trends in the evangelical subculture, namely pledges of chastity and the like, have had minimal impact on our sexual behaviour. In America at least, we aren't that different from the world. He goes on to argue that this is primarily due to a deficient, even unbiblical, view of marriage. For all our defence of traditional marriage, we have simply come to view marriage as "a central source of human contentment" and "romantic love [as] the key gauge of its health". Thus, marriage has been transformed into an ideal. Result? Unsurprisingly, many young adults are now much more wary of entering something so 'big'. The message they hear is: get yourselves and your lives sorted out first. And so marriage, and sex, is put on hold. But, sex is hard to put on hold, hence our disappointingly worldly behaviour. There is also a demographic dimension: simply put, there are more women than men in church. And judging from conversations I've had, this seems to be true just about everywhere - East and West.

This, Regnerus argues, tends to exacerbate rather than solve the problem. He anticipates and answers objections such as economic insecurity, immaturity and so on. Marriage is, first and foremost, a covenant, where we learn what self-sacrifical love and commitment really looks like. "Chemistry wanes. Covenants don't". Marriage is not some ready-made perfect union where you will enjoy bliss upon exchanging rings, but a place where both partners will continue to be formed in character. In conclusion, young Christian couples who are maturing in their faith should be encouraged towards marriage.

Does a right, biblical view of marriage necessarily incline one towards early marriage? Maybe, maybe not. Certainly in my church circles, I would say people get married earlier than average, and that some definitely encourage this.

But whatever you think, Regnerus is absolutely right to point out that all too often, our views of marriage are misshappened. I know I want to claim that Hollywood and novels and pop music have not affected me one iota. Considering I just went "awww" this morning at this Sleepless in Seattle story while chomping on some bacon, I'll say my claim doesn't exactly rest on solid foundations.

Historically, Christians have given three answers to the purpose of marriage, as I only found out recently. There are
1. procreation
2. intimacy
3. societal order
with Roman Catholics typically majoring on the first and Protestants the second, and no one really wanting to champion the third! All three can be biblically supported. So although romance and chemistry has been downplayed somewhat in this post, they're clearly a gift that God blesses his world with, and married couples should not be ashamed to delight in it.

But all of this needs to be understood within a covenantal framework. That is, marriages are not in service to us, but in service to God. Marriages are not just about what goes on in the bedroom, but how they function as a social and family unit. Christopher Ash, who has thought about this subject deeply, shows this from a sensitive and compelling reading of Genesis 1 and 2*. I take it Regnerus agrees with him.

To be honest, I haven't thought about the whole "what is the nature of marriage" question at any length before, and the only reason I've dwelt on it more recently was due to one or two pastoral situations that arose this past year. (Isn't that usually the case?) It's very counter-cultural to my own thinking.

I'm still not completely sure if that mandates early marriage. I remember at a conference early this year, there was a "you should definitely be thinking about marriage" line handed down to all of us (who were mostly in early to mid-20s). But in many cases, most people were already seeking to get married. The question then becomes, are you being too fussy? Well, maybe. But maybe not. I don't think that it was necessarily wrong to encourage marriage. That is, to engender courage in people that getting married isn't a bad thing and you can trust God! But perhaps a parallel emphasis that singleness is also a gift from God was needed.

But I'm starting to get somewhat off-track. Anyway, an important subject to think about.

*Christopher Ash has written both a weighty theological tome on the subject, simply entitled Marriage, and a book for laypeople, Married for God. I've only read the latter. He has also written an excellent summary article for the Christ on Campus Initiative.



† Expand post

Alpha

I've just finished watching a documentary on Alpha on Channel 4 (limited time online; not sure if non-UK viewers would be able to access it). This was of special interest to me since the church previewed is literally just down the road from me, and I have friends who've gone there. It's quite interesting. On the surface at least, pretty even-handed; going for a more descriptive approach. Although there were a few throw-away lines that insinuated that this was a bit of a slick marketing operation. For example, saying that there were pretty girls on hand to serve you food seemed to me deeply unfair in what it implied. Plus the Nicky Gumbel/Tony Blair comparison, which btw, for those of you not in Britain, shouldn't necessarily be taken as a compliment.

Still, it's always interesting to see how Christians are perceived, and always just as interesting to see what sort of questions non-Christians have. There was the line about religion being all about inclusivity, whether Christianity was really more of a psychological experience, and the person who found Jesus off-putting. Disappointingly, the show actually didn't dwell that much on the small group time, preferring, somewhat understandably, to dwell on the various agnostics and their backgrounds instead.

The narrator concluded that Alpha, in the end, was "organised niceness", run by decent people, with just that weird element of trying to get people to speak in tongues on the weekend (I'm afraid I'm not sold on this idea, looking at 1 Corinthians 14?) What the programme does show is that people do have real questions, and that not everyone is a New Atheist™. I was slightly disappointed by the way in which some of the answers seem to have been answered. But the programme only provided a few glimpses of such moments, so it's unfair to judge them on such scant evidence.

There have recently been some questions about whether things like Alpha or Christianity Explored are out of step with the times, and more importantly, whether they come across as being too much like a "package". My own thinking at the moment is that, like most things, they have their place. What we must work hard at is getting our bearings right. So, it isn't a short-cut, nor is it a synonym for evangelism, or indeed, the power and source of salvation.

I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,[a] just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith".
Romans 1:16-17

A mission report

I’m back! Got in late last night, straight to bed, and straight to work this morning. And now combating jet-lag, especially since while I could take it easy today, tomorrow is a pretty full day. No falling asleep in Bible study tomorrow night!

My 2 weeks away definitely counts as one of my highlights of the year. Possibly the highlight of the year. I was pretty apprehensive beforehand, but I’m now so glad I went. Can’t give you complete details unfortunately, as we do have long-term mission partners out there and so I shouldn’t do anything that would compromise their position, however slight.

We usually started the day with training sessions. The first was more biblically-oriented, as we thought about one key aspect of the Bible’s story (eg. creation, cross, resurrection) and how we might share the gospel in a cross-cultural context. The second session concentrated more on the culture of this particular country and some the particular challenges. We usually ended the day, just before dinner, with a devotion from Philippians – I led one of them – and prayer.

We also got, over the course of the 2 weeks, to meet both with believers and non-believers. It was a great experience, and often surprising, too! (People are very open in this country). For instance, I ended up chatting about George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards and David Brainerd with one believer, which was a topic of conversation I can safely say I wasn’t expecting. Or in another chat with an unbeliever, I was rather taken aback by one of her objections, which was basically premised on a feminist reading of the Bible (isn’t it just a partriarchal tool designed to suppress women etc. etc.?). Now I might expect such an objection from an Oxbridge student, but certainly not from someone in this country! It was also good to be able to actually do an impromptu study on the rich young ruler (Mark 10:17ff) with another seeker. And it was really interesting to experience church in another culture, which is not quite like the models we’re more used to.

I think one of the things I also appreciated was seeing how much we have in common with other believers in other contexts. Contextualization is a word we often bandy about, and that’s not a bad thing. I work with international students, and I often get frustrated in trying to work out, and in getting people to see, that you can’t do things the exact same way with them as you do with local British students! But we mustn’t push this too far. In many respects, wherever you are, the challenges and issues are the same.

I also really appreciated just watching our mission partners and what they do day-to-day. You get a much better sense of how to pray for them, what are the issues they face, and so on. It was great to have some good chats with them. I especially enjoyed having dinner with one of them (whom I already knew previously) and getting a bit of one-to-one time in which I was on the receiving end of "ministry", as it were! He had some really good advice as I try to think through what I might be doing for the next 3 years or so.

I loved my team too. I have to say, I suspect it’s unusual to have a team in which the dynamics work out so well. That was definitely an answer to prayer.

So I’ve painted a very rosy picture so far, but as always, that isn’t quite the full picture. I did have some difficult moments. I anticipated the language barrier to be a problem when I came, and there was one day in particular where I had to remind myself that "I’m justified by faith, not by linguistic ability". There were certainly times where I felt like I had been pretty rubbish at serving others and not myself. Nonetheless, it was worth it. At the end of the trip, we did a short questionnaire designed to help us reflect on our experience. And one of the things this trip reminded me was that God is the same God no matter where we are, and Christ is what we need no matter who we are. This trip also helped sharpen my focus. Now anyone who knows me knows that I am anti anti-intellectualism, and that I am convinced good theology is essential to our spiritual health. I’m still convinced. But there is a kind of danger, especially for those of us who often read the many Christian and biblioblogs out there, that we end up in some rather pointless academic debates or stuff that frankly, people don’t care about!

Thanks again for your prayers, and it’s definitely worth thinking about going on a short-terms mission trip if you have the chance!


† Expand post